Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 234 of 234

Thread: What is outside of our universe? Vacuum?

  1. #201  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontboreme
    How can you support the laws of Thermodynamics and believe in cosmological evolution?
    how can't i?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    Wikipedia.

    * Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy

    The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

    (Could it be said that entropy is akin to disorder and/or useless unorganized X?)


    Also Wikipedia
    The Thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in the context of thermodynamics, is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work. In simpler terms, it is also a measure of the disorder and randomness present in a system. In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, it is a key physical variable in describing a thermodynamic system. Entropy is "a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work" within a closed thermodynamic system.[1]

    If everything tends toward entropy how can we say that a natural non-biological phenomenon(s) is(are) responsible for the order we see in our universe.

    I know that this is a generalized question and there are as many points under this as there are stars in the sky. I just can't get around the big rules with a series of deviations from the very thing the law states.

    Where did the order come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    What closed system of "order" are you talking about, within which the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being violated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Don't bore me, you are ignoring the signifance of the word tends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    To the degree of deviation from the "rule" wouldn't another word be more appropriate then? Tends would suggest a majority of the time. What % of the universe would you say shows signs of order? Or even more to the point... I would dare use the word precision...

    The universe itself would be considered a closed system unless you subscribe to Intelligent Design. It being a closed system that tends toward entropy, how can we explain the systems within the universe that are constant and ordered. Further... what must the universe have been like a million million years ago. Think of the "order" and energy that would have been lost, for our universe to "degrade" to its current state?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontboreme
    To the degree of deviation from the "rule" wouldn't another word be more appropriate then? Tends would suggest a majority of the time. What % of the universe would you say shows signs of order? Or even more to the point... I would dare use the word precision...
    No. Tends is perfect. (Quite precise, in fact.) Of you wish to clarify the phrase you could add the words 'over time'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    so your saying over time the 2nd law is gradually overcome by ordered structure?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    5
    Well, I posted this last night in the Expanding Universe thread, but I think it fits in here with this thread too, so I'm posting it again.

    It might not be what you all consider the scientific way of looking at it but I think of the universe as we presently know it as a growing universe contained within a larger universe, which is contained with another even larger universe, within another and another, etc. on into infinity. And it's all still growing.

    When I was just a child I once had it explained to me this way by an insane man who was convinced he was god (and for all I know, maybe he was.) He held up his finger to me and told me to look at it through a magnifying glass and said "look at one tiny open pore on the skin of my fingertip. Now imagine that pore is a universe containing all the galaxies and solar systems that we already know of. See all the other millions of pores, each one as a separate universe. And all those pores are part of a greater whole that makes up this man's body. And this man's body is as a single atom on the face of this earth, and this earth is as a single atom contained at the end of the spiral arm of the galaxy that contains our solar system. Now imagine that our galaxy is as a single pore on the fingertip of a greater universe which is only the fingertip of another one."

    It was easier for me to relate to this concept when I started studying growing crystals under microscopes and discovered entire alien universes within them.

    See some cool images (micrographs) of microscopic crystals that are growing and expanding in an orderly fashion and imagine that this first one, the single grain of sand, is just one universe within many, and that the crystals growing within the grain of sand are other universes.

    multiple crystals growing within a single grain of sand:
    http://www.magma.ca/~rel/mfc/images/sand/packed.jpg

    microscopic space dust- olivine a.k.a. peridot - The NASA telescope's infrared eyes have for the first time detected clumps of microscopic dust grains and tiny crystals orbiting five brown dwarfs. These clumps and crystals are thought to collide and further lump together to eventually make planets. Similar materials are seen in planet-forming regions around stars and in comets, the remnants of our own solar system's construction. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...048-browse.jpg

    some kind of liquid crystal: http://142.31.52.6/Unit1/images/01crystl.jpg
    another kind of crystal: http://images.picturequest.com/commo...8/22579865.jpg
    and another @ 200X mag: http://labs.sci.qut.edu.au/minerals/...quartzms13.jpg
    and 4 more 200X: http://www.mineralsocal.org/micro/images/micromin.gif

    a crystal and 2 diatoms: http://www.msscweb.org/images/homepage/crystal%201.jpg

    Transmitted polarized light micrograph of a high density liquid crystalline DNA phase.
    http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/publicat.../dnaliquid.jpg

    Microscopic observation of Side Chain-Polymer Liquid Crystal
    http://www.gsst.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/img...he_mat_1_l.jpg

    Microscopic Views of 2 Meteorites
    http://www.photovault.com/Link/Unive...AV01P01_18.jpg
    click on the square to enlarge image of this meteorite even more
    http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/WebImg/D'Orbigny.jpg

    microscopic oil-mineral aggregations (OMA). OMA is a process where oil droplets and sediment grains naturally adhere to one another, providing an opportunity for naturally-occurring bacteria to consume and, thus, biodegrade the oil.
    http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/coo...er_021_Oma.jpg

    micrograph of rock wool:
    http://www.aichi-sangyo.co.jp/englis...s/mineral4.gif

    aragonite: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/...f4317_1708.jpg

    a single crystal of salt: http://www.chem.cornell.edu/sl137/Pictures.dir/salt.jpg

    microscopic snowflake crystal: http://www.chem.cornell.edu/sl137/Pictures.dir/snow.jpg

    frozen sea-ice - called frazil crystals http://nsidc.org/seaice/images/frazil2.jpg

    Paracetamol crystals: http://www.wack.ch/fame/afc1/pic6/afc614b.jpg

    Tartaric acid crystals: http://www.wack.ch/fame/afc1/pic6/afc623b.jpg

    microscopic dolomite: http://www.osomin.com/ra9.jpg

    If these are all little universes growing in an orderly fashion right here on our tiny little ball of earth then why can't the same thing be happening on a bigger scale - out there? I believe there is perfect order in all the universes and that their scale and rate of growth is beyond our imagination. I certainly don't believe there is any such thing as nothing. Nothing? - that is inconceivable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontboreme
    so your saying over time the 2nd law is gradually overcome by ordered structure?
    No, overtime, the second law wins, and all the order dissolves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    so what model of cosmological evolution provides for the second law of Thermodynamics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I don't understand your question. All models of cosmological evolution that have ever received serious consideration take into account the Second Law.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    here is an interesting theory. i found it in the march 2004 issue of popular science. there is another universe out there. it is always less than an inch from us. this has an extra demension. think of it this way: if you but a bowl of soup out to long, it developes a thin membrane on the top. it is 2D. the soup under it is 3D. we live in a 3D world (or 4D, counting time), with a 4D world above, below, beside, and whatever other demension it has. but no 3D object can go there. it is missing the 4th demension. only gravity can go there. this is what makes time go. the 4D gravity. and of course, the 4D universe has another 5D universe just out of reach, and so on.
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    chamilton, try not to post the same thing in more than one thread.
    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    I don't beleive that the models do. Paint me a picture (show me a theory) that describes the state of the universe a billion years ago before a billion years of entropy and chaos entered our universe. Then explain how it got to that state in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The Standard Big Bang model and all variants of it.

    Go read up on them, then tell me specifically wherein any of them fail to take account of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    37
    okies searching it out
    back soon

    (chaparoning senior trip next week. dunno if i'll be able to post but I'll try)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I have a week of full day teaching (and overnight travelling), so I'll be out of it too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    chamilton, try not to post the same thing in more than one thread.
    Thanks.
    i am sorry, i just didnt know how to link to the other thread.
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Forgive me for coming into this discussion late, but it interests me. And it seems to be not as mysterious as some try to make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    How does one define the edge of our universe?
    Edge? What edge?
    Did you ever have a toy train as a kid? Imagine one very basic, a circular track. The train can go one of two directions, frontward or backward. As far as the one-dimensional movement of the train is concerned, where is the ‘edge’? Can the train go far enough to reach the ‘end’? Can the train go too far and fall off the ‘edge’?
    Are you with me so far?

    Now, we step this up a notch. Imagine the surface of a sphere; a perfectly round, perfectly smooth sphere. No rivers, no oceans, no hills, no valleys. (Yeah, boring.) Now, one can move in two dimensions: North-South or East-West. Now, considering only those two dimensions of travel (one can’t dig in and one can’t jump off) where is the edge? If one goes far enough, one returns to where one started, but one does not come to an edge and falls off.

    Now the really hard bit. The Universe is a three dimensional construct analogous to the train and the sphere above. One can move ‘East-West’, ‘North-South’ or ‘Up-Down’. There is no edge. There is no exit door. (Well, maybe death, but that’s pretty meta-physical.) If this seems hard to understand, you’re in good company. It takes a while to assimilate the concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    What's considered inside and what's considered outside?
    The definition of ‘Universe’ is (according to M-W.com) “the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated”. In other words, ‘everything there is’. I personally add, and I think safely, “... from a materialistic or evidentiary standpoint.” So we can leave out the “Heaven-Hell-God” stuff as not being approachable in an evidentiary – according to the strict rules of scientific inquiry – manner. (That is not to say it doesn’t exist, but it does not exist on the same level of existence we access. It won't show up on radar or in a test tube; it cannot be calculated.)
    So, to answer this question, if it exists, it’s inside.
    The hard part of the answer is, there is no outside. Go back and recheck answer one; there is no edge, no exit door, no way to get out; therefore, there is no outside.

    Claiming there is an outside is tantamount to suggesting one can remove one’s body from one’s body. Or at the least, similar to the question, “What (functioning and living) part of your body is outside your body?”

    Yes, I’ve read the ‘brane’ theory stuff about other universes on other ‘branes’. The big drawback is we are totally cut off from anything not part of our universe. No information can be passed into or out of our Universe; therefore, nothing in our Universe can affect, or be affected by, anything not in our Universe. So what’s the point of considering them? Furthermore, if at some point we can ‘reach’ those other branes, then the Universe is just bigger than we thought; but it’s still the Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    If there is an outside, what does this outside contains? Vacuum?
    Not applicable. See above. There ain’t no vacuum because a vacuum requires space. There ain’t no space outside space.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    If vacuum is outside of our universe, why should it be considered not part of our universe then?
    Not applicable, see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    If the vacuum outside of our universe is considered part of our universe, then what's truly outside? Nothing, not even vacuum? Or is vacuum not truly empty?
    I think you’re starting to get the problem of the ‘outside the Universe’ question. Keep thinking, you’re doing fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    If space-time continuum exists only after the big bang, then what is there in the "zone" (I don't call it space to avoid confusion), before big bang?
    Okay... according to the standard Big Bang theory, it was a ‘singularity’ that Banged. All the matter and energy and space in the Universe was squeezed down and confined in a point-like ‘singularity’. There was no ‘space’. The singularity (there’s no other name for it) began expanding. Why? Don’t know.
    The problem comes up as: If space didn’t exist prior to the expansion of the singularity, where was it? Where did it come from?

    Many physicists just sort of shook their heads and said, “Don’t know, but the math shows it that way.”

    The Creationist type of Christians pretty much ignored it. It didn’t fit their time-table or concept of God.

    The non-Creationist type of Christians looked at it and said, “Isn’t it obvious? God was behind this. This is exactly what one would expect, consistent with a figurative reading of the Genesis account.”

    The agnostic-atheist faction of physicists looked at the theory, heard the non-Creationist Christian corollary and soiled themselves. They said, “NNNNNNNNoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! and developed various theories to remove the need for a ‘point of origin’. Check the ‘Steady State’ theory for historical value and compare it to “M” theory in terms of ‘pulling a hair of one’s ear’ and desperate inventiveness to reduce a threat.

    Enough for now. StarNamer; what stars have you named? I’m just curious.
    The universe is a real place. However, you can't see it, you have to imagine it. Like it or not, God designed, built and sustains the Universe. Deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie
    Now the really hard bit. The Universe is a three dimensional construct analogous to the train and the sphere above. One can move ‘East-West’, ‘North-South’ or ‘Up-Down’. There is no edge. There is no exit door. (Well, maybe death, but that’s pretty meta-physical.) If this seems hard to understand, you’re in good company. It takes a while to assimilate the concept.
    I've got 2 comments. First, according to GR (to my understanding) the universe is a 4 dimensional construct - spacetime, not just space. The past, present, and future just are, in exactly the same manner that the 3 spacial dimensions are. Which is why asking what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless. The Big Bang is simply that point in the universe where t=0.
    2, doesn't your explanation assume a closed geometry for the universe? If you go out "straight" with sufficiently impossible velocity we don't know if you end up back where you started or not in the same manner that going north or south does. To continue the analogy, the Big Bang is the south pole. You can't go south from there, just like you can't go "before" the Big Bang. All directions lead north.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie
    Now the really hard bit. The Universe is a three dimensional construct analogous to the train and the sphere above. One can move ‘East-West’, ‘North-South’ or ‘Up-Down’. There is no edge. There is no exit door. (Well, maybe death, but that’s pretty meta-physical.) If this seems hard to understand, you’re in good company. It takes a while to assimilate the concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I've got 2 comments. First, according to GR (to my understanding) the universe is a 4 dimensional construct - spacetime, not just space. The past, present, and future just are, in exactly the same manner that the 3 spacial dimensions are. Which is why asking what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless. The Big Bang is simply that point in the universe where t=0.
    Correct. I left out the time dimension for simplicity. ‘Seeing’ the three dimensional construct is hard enough. And I don’t want to get into ‘does time curve in on itself like the other three dimensions?’
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    2, doesn't your explanation assume a closed geometry for the universe? If you go out "straight" with sufficiently impossible velocity we don't know if you end up back where you started or not in the same manner that going north or south does. To continue the analogy, the Big Bang is the south pole. You can't go south from there, just like you can't go "before" the Big Bang. All directions lead north.
    Yes, it does assume a closed geometry. In short, all the smart money seems to be on closed. If the Universe expanded from a ‘singularity’, it was finite at certain points. The expansion of anything finite is finite – even if stupifyingly big.

    And yes, one cannot back up ‘past’ the BB. It’s not one ‘cannot get there’, the problem is ‘there is no there, there’. Or as you put it, one cannot go south of the South Pole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Freshman Algorithm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7
    As much as I would like to think we will discover the answer to this question, I doubt we ever will. I do like to think about it regardless. If the universe is infinite, then how? I don't think a lot of people actually try to imagine what infinity really is -- it never stops. It is easy to think of numbers as never stopping, but something that is actually physical; not so much. If the universe isn't infinite, then what is beyond that? If there is something beyond that, would it be infinite or would there be something beyond that?

    I just think this is one of those questions we can only attempt to make a logical statement about and hope it becomes a paradigm. It is up there with the question of life and the purpose of it. We can make our best guess at it, but we will likely never have a definitive answer to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Algorithm, no current - defensible - theories of the universe include the universe being infinite. It is limited in size - although mind-bogglingly huge - and curved in on itself. Nor is it infinite in time.

    Some people want to think that, but it's just wishful thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    4
    According to many scientists, the Universe began and will end in a singularity. Therefore, there no question of even the existence of an 'outside'. All that exists now and for some more time is the Universe and all that used to exist then and later on will be a singularity.[/i]
    MukundhVasudev
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225 Re: What is outside of our universe? Vacuum? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    Just something which puzzles me till now.

    How does one defines the edge of our universe?
    What's considered inside and what's considered outside?
    If there is a outside, what does this outside contains? Vacuum?
    If vacuum is outside of our universe, why should it be considered not part of our universe then?
    If the vacuum outside of our universe is considered part of our universe, then what's truly outside? Nothing, not even vacuum? Or is vacuum not truly empty?

    Anyway, just some rhetorical questions that boggled my mind.
    :wink:

    The way these questions are asked shows a difficulty to come to terms with the concepts themselves. They are certainly heavy in their apparent simplicity.
    For example when we ask; “If there is an outside, what does this outside contain? Vacuum?” we already presuppose that the vacuum is containable and that in a way it has properties much like those we know to exist inside the universe. For something to be containable it has to be a “something” in the first place. A Nothing does not need a container. In our experiments with vacuum the container in fact is not needed to hold the void, but to keep out “things” which would make the vacuum impossible. However, things such as space and time cannot be kept out as the very walls of the container (and presumably other things also such as light if the container is made of glass etc.) come into contact with the void inside.
    Also the question; “If the vacuum outside of our universe is considered part of our universe, then what's truly outside? Nothing, not even vacuum? Or is vacuum not truly empty?” assumes that a few of these concepts, such as “Universe,” “Vacuum,” “Nothingness,” “Inside,” and “Outside” are exclusive of each-other. I am not as yet suggesting that they are either exclusive or inclusive, the point is that when dealing with such concepts and looking for answers, one shall in a way leave aside the preconceived ideas that go unquestioned and unsuspected, and free and open one’s mind to new possibilities. Language has a way of indoctrinating us, we should not let it go unquestioned as the seemingly simplest concepts are normally bound to go.


    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    If space-time continuum exists only after the big bang, then what is there in the "zone" (I don't call it space to avoid confusion), before big bang?
    Quote Originally Posted by Homo Universalis
    I believe an absolute vacuum, which would than spawn a large number of anti-particles and particles,...
    The most important part of this question is answered by Homo Universalis. The second part of the answer remains mainly the implications that can be drawn from this.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    It seems that even the presence of photons or neutrinos will make the vacuum not perfect.

    For me, after reading the article, I would believe (in my limited physics knowledge) that there is a perfect vacuum before big bang and our current universe has a boundary where its outside is true void (not even light).
    I think we have at this point to clarify the concepts, and give at least a simple definition of them so as to have a starting point and also not have to repeat the same explanations all over again. By Nothingness I would mean an absence of anything, even of space and time. Nothingness in this way would be the perfect vacuum since time cannot exist where there is no motion. Vacuum in its imperfect state as experienced in our Universe (and our own experiments) would on the other hand allow for the passage of time since there is space there, and therefore motion and so cannot be called Nothing, or Nothingness. The perfect Vacuum, or Nothingness where not even time exists, is impossible from the present state we find ourselves in, for the very reason that as something is created out of nothing, that creation would happen at the very instant we would have such nothingness. Time would only be introduced after this something comes into being [or rather at the same time with it] and so “in the beginning” we would only have an imperfect state of nothingness. To speak about a time before Time itself came into existence does not make any sense and so it is only logical to say that Nothingness and Somethingness came into existence together, at least for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    I would believe (in my limited physics knowledge) that there is a perfect vacuum before big bang and our current universe has a boundary where its outside is true void (not even light).
    That is a person there will theoretically see nothing, not even the entire expanding universe somewhere far away, not even as a tiny dot.
    Outside the Universe there is no space so one can never be far away as that would mean distance and distance only makes sense in space.

    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    Is vacuum part of our universe (or space-time continuum whatever you like to call it) or it isn't. That is, where do we set the boundary saying that from this point onwards, we shall call it outside of our universe. Whatever before that is inside.
    That question goes too soon to the conclusion, but yes, I would say that vacuum or nothingness in an imperfect state is part of our universe without on the other hand creating another question, which can be put; “What’s truly outside?” The reason for saying this is that an absolute state of something, (or nothing) is impossible. As we know from quantum mechanics in a next to perfect vacuum state, particles are created, thus making the vacuum… well – even less perfect! Something coming out of Nothing. Without for the moment going into the question of why these two states would need their opposite, I think that we got right here all the answers we need to understand what can be outside of our Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    A Universe turned inside out
    It is funny that you should be right only when you are giving a solution which you clearly think is the wrong one. I will explain this later.

    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space, the contained? Huh?

    It's a simple concept to consider space as not conforming to the laws of physics, it has no physical makeup. Now if you call space what I consider outer space then you could say it has boundaries. Space however still continues outwards for infinity. It has no physical properties at all, true space is 100% void of everything. That void can be filled with matter and energy. One clearly could not argue the big bang without believing space is 100% void.
    Why Not?

    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Space defined as the absolute void that holds all matter and energy. (Empty space as opposed to occupied space).
    Space cannot be absolute vacuum. If Space is the absolute void as you claim it is, than Einstein’s statement that space is curved would be meaningless. That is some big statement you are putting forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I've got 2 comments. First, according to GR (to my understanding) the universe is a 4 dimensional construct - spacetime, not just space. The past, present, and future just are, in exactly the same manner that the 3 spacial dimensions are. Which is why asking what happened before the Big Bang is meaningless. The Big Bang is simply that point in the universe where t=0.
    I disagree. You begin by stating that the universe is not a construct of space, a point with which I agree, but that it is rather a construct of spacetime. With this excellent beginning, you then go on to make a definitive statement of meaningless, on the basis of your contention that t=0. However, what possible absolute meaning can there be for your statement t=0? Does this not violate you own contention that the universe is about spacetime, and therefore not only not about space divorced from time but also not about time divorced from space? I think that asking what happened before the Big Bang is very meaningful. Before the Big Bang, however, we can expect that there will be no such thing as spacetime, which began at what you call t=0, but perhaps some other form of space and time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    most uses of time are that of time intervals.
    say between 0 and plank time= plank time.
    t=0 would simply be start of this interval, perhaps the point where the universe was a singularity.





    psst. i can't say i know fully what i'm talking about, anyone wanna back me up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    i can't say i know fully what i'm talking about, anyone wanna back me up?
    Perhaps in time. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    most uses of time are that of time intervals.
    I think that most uses of time are time cycles, such as the cycle of the moon around the earth. However, the very word uses implies usage by mankind. Time is much more than how it is used by mankind, don't you think?

    t=0 would simply be start of this interval, perhaps the point where the universe was a singularity.
    I don't know the value of thinking of the universe as a singularity. I think that since the notion of space-time has been introduced, that in this context it is better to think of space-time as at a singularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Many people look at the physical laws of the universe, with its impersonal destructive inevitabilities, grinding away like a mindless clockwork, and despairingly declare that there must be more than this. Often such people have, in a childlike innocence, looked out there to the heavens thinking out there somewhere is a haven, a safe harbor, which promises rest to the weary soul and someone who cares and gives meaning to it all. But with increasing technology we have looked our there farther and farther and instead of a haven we only see more of the same. The heavens is not a heaven but a place of vast distances, swirling gases, inhospitible forces and cataclysmic events. We see only harsh reality upon harsh reality making our lives even more precarious and our world even less significant.

    Finally GR comes along with idea of a finite universe in a finite space curved upon itself but expanding. So what do we do? Do we continue in childlike innocence imagining something out there unimaginably far away beyond limits which do not even exist? Or do we take heed to the spiritual persons among us who say that we are looking in the wrong direction. What we seek is not out there immpossibly far away but so close it is within our very selves. If we would see the limits of the mathematical laws of physics and the boundary of this clockwork universe, we should not be looking out there but right here where we are in the stuff of which we are all made and find our being.

    ((Forgive this philosophical/religious/scientific mixture in what clearly should be a purely scientific discussion, b u t I cannot help trying to uncover the source of the resistance to the ideas of relativity and the big bang. And thefore I try to address the real problems at the root. Besides the science has been explained and see not point in repeating this or in arguing a scientific issue in a muddy pool of amaturish rhetoric.))
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1
    How come no one has added anything to this thread? Was the last post really as perfectly worded as I thought it was? 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232 Re: What is outside of our universe? Vacuum? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by starnamer
    Just something which puzzles me till now.

    How does one defines the edge of our universe?
    What's considered inside and what's considered outside?
    If there is a outside, what does this outside contains? Vacuum?
    If vacuum is outside of our universe, why should it be considered not part of our universe then?
    If the vacuum outside of our universe is considered part of our universe, then what's truly outside? Nothing, not even vacuum? Or is vacuum not truly empty?

    Anyway, just some rhetorical questions that boggled my mind.
    :wink:
    Your question is just another example of how ludicrous the BBT is.

    The BBT answer is --- nothing.
    But this is an UNrealistic answer.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    12
    My guess would be antimatter, or an alternate universe, where everything is the inverse of ours. just a guess though, and has probably been stated hundreds of times in this thread :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234 My Theory on what lies Beyond! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    From a philosophical viewpoint I use to wondered as a kid, what exists beyond the universal curvature we call the space/time continuum.

    I think that beyond the vast Universal System there is a greater region of Space that we might call, for sake of simplicity, Original Potential. This potential is the source of all manifestation, and is the end to which all manifestation will eventually reside.

    I believe that this potential is a true vacuum in the sense that no matter as such exists there. But I do think there is an etheric presence there. (Yes, i believe in the ether theory of the late 19th century!) And that from this Higher Etheric Space many universes are born.

    Yet, even beyond this, there is what I call Absolute Space. This is even more theoretical than the Space of Pure Potential because we get even closer to the source and end of all things.

    So I see space, itself, as consisting of: 1) Manifestation (The Space/time continuum) 2) Original Potential and 3) The Absolute
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •